Tapping into technology and the biodiversity informatics revolution

38 Pages·2017·4.4 MB·English

by  Peter J. Taylor

ZooKeys 779: 51–88 (T20a1p8p)ing into technology and the biodiversity informatics revolution..A. peer-reviewed open-access jo5urn1al
doi: 10.3897/zookeys.779.25964 RESEARCH ARTICLE
http://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research
Tapping into technology and the biodiversity
informatics revolution: updated terrestrial mammal list
of Angola, with new records from the Okavango Basin
Peter J. Taylor1,2,3, Götz Neef3, Mark Keith3,4, Sina Weier1,3,
Ara Monadjem5,6, Daniel M. Parker3,7,8
1 South African Research Chair on Biodiversity Value & Change and Core Team Member of the Centre for
Invasion Biology, University of Venda, Thohoyandou 0950, South Africa 2 School of Life Sciences, University
of KwaZulu-Natal Private Bag X54001, Durban 4000, South Africa 3 National Geographic Okavango
Wilderness Project, Wild Bird Trust, South Africa 4 Eugène Marais Chair of Wildlife Management, Mam-
mal Research Institute, University of Pretoria, Private Bag x20, Hatfield, Pretoria, 0028, South Africa 5 De-
partment of Biological Sciences, University of Swaziland, Private Bag 4, Kwaluseni, Swaziland 6 Mammal
Research Institute, Department of Zoology & Entomology, University of Pretoria, Private Bag x20, Hatfield,
Pretoria, 0028, South Africa 7 School of Biology and Environmental Sciences, University of Mpumalanga,
Private Bag X11283, Nelspruit, 1200, South Africa 8 Wildlife and Reserve Management Research Group,
Department of Zoology and Entomology, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, 6140, South Africa
Corresponding author: Peter J. Taylor ([email protected])
Academic editor: P. Stoev  |  Received 18 April 2018  |  Accepted 18 June 2018  |  Published 2 August 2018
http://zoobank.org/AA00E58B-C110-450E-A3F3-42ADFB890F18
Citation: Taylor PJ, Neef G, Keith M, Weier S, Monadjem A, Parker DM (2018) Tapping into technology and
the biodiversity informatics revolution: updated terrestrial mammal list of Angola, with new records from the
Okavango Basin. ZooKeys 779: 51–88. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.779.25964
Abstract
Using various sources, including the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), published litera-
ture, recent (2015–2017) collections, as well as bat detector and camera trap surveys with opportunistic
sightings and live capture in the upper Okavango catchment in central Angola, we present an updated
mammal checklist of 275 species from 15 different orders for Angola (including the Cabinda region). Re-
cent surveys (captures and bat detectors) of small mammals from the upper Okavango catchment yielded
46 species (33 species of bats, ten species of rodents and three species of shrews). One bat (Pipistrellus
rusticus, rusty pipistrelle); two rodents (Mus setzeri, Setzer’s mouse and Zelotomys woosnami, Woosnam’s
Copyright Peter J. Taylor et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC
BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
52 Peter J. Taylor et al. / ZooKeys 779: 51–88 (2018)
broad-faced mouse) and one shrew (Suncus varilla, lesser dwarf shrew) were captured for the first time,
in Angola. While our species lists of bats conformed to predicted totals, terrestrial small mammals were
under sampled, with only 13 species recorded by our trapping survey compared to a total of 42 shrew and
rodent species expected based on GBIF records for the central Angolan highlands. Seven terrestrial small
mammal species (one shrew and six rodents) are endemic to the central and western Angolan highlands
but none of these were captured in our survey. The bat detector surveys added three further bat spe-
cies to the country list: Pipistrellus hesperidus, Kerivoula argentata, and Mops midas. Camera trap surveys
and opportunistic sightings in the upper Okavango catchment in 2016 yielded a total of 35 species of
medium-large mammals, from 17 families, although all of these had been reported previously in Angola.
GBIF proved to be an excellent source of biodiversity data for Angolan mammals, most importantly for
documenting dramatic historical range changes of larger mammals such as the sable (Hippotragus niger
niger), Kirk’s sable (H. niger kirkii) and the giant sable (H. niger variani).
Keywords
Angola, checklist, Global Biodiversity Information Facility, mammals, Okavango Basin, scientific collections
Introduction
Country species checklists and distribution maps for key taxa such as mammals rep-
resent a critical step in national efforts towards reaching international (e.g., the Con-
vention on Biological Diversity) and national biodiversity targets and planning for
conservation management and sustainable development at regional and local levels.
Rapid advances in biodiversity informatics leading to huge volumes of reliable histori-
cal and recent occurrence data through public portals such as the Global Biodiversity
Information Facility (https://www.gbif.org) make it possible to conduct taxonomic
and conservation biodiversity assessments and compile reliable annotated species lists
even for poorly known countries and regions (Soberón and Peterson 2004; Beaman
and Cellinese 2012; Coetzer 2012; Wieczorek et al. 2012).
At the same time, advances in technology such as camera traps and micro-
phones (including bat detectors) and associated analytical tools are facilitating
rapid and efficient field inventories of groups such as larger mammals, bats, birds,
crickets, and amphibians. In many cases, acoustic systems have been developed for
automated species classification of huge volumes of call data. In the case of bats,
echolocation calls are not songs, making the identification to species from bat calls
a challenging exercise that requires suitable cross-testing of results using reliably
identified calls, e.g., from captured and released individuals (Barclay 1999; Taylor
et al. 2013; Monadjem et al. 2017; Rydell et al. 2017). Similarly, camera traps have
enabled efficient and comprehensive surveys of medium and large-sized mammals
and other groups (Stein et al. 2008; Tobler et al. 2008; Rovero and Marshall 2009;
Rovero et al. 2014).
The objectives of this study were firstly to consolidate available data to compile
an updated species checklist of terrestrial mammals of Angola, and secondly to add
Tapping into technology and the biodiversity informatics revolution... 53
to this list the results of recent surveys of mammals in the poorly surveyed Okavango
catchment area of the central highlands of Angola, using both live capture and remote
camera trap and acoustic techniques.
Brief historical overview of mthe south-western quarter of Angola in the Ameri-
can Museum of Natural History from the Vernay-Lang (conducted in 1925) and Phi-
pps-Bradley (in 1932) expeditions, Hill and Carter (1941) listed a total of 223 species
of mammals for Angola, including 13 shrews (Soricomorpha), one hedgehog (Erina-
ceomorpha), one golden mole and one otter shrew (Afrosoricida), two elephant shrews
(Macroscelidea), one aardvark (Tubulidentata), two pangolins (Pholidota), 53 bats
(Chiroptera), 10 primates (Primates), two hares (Lagomorpha), 66 rodents (Rodentia),
36 carnivores, one elephant (Proboscidea), two hyraxes (Hyracoidea) and 32 ungulates
(four Perissodactyla and 28 Artiodactyla). Subsequent to this publication, Angola has
been largely neglected in terms of mammal survey effort. For example, those who led
the Smithsonian Institution’s ambitious African Mammal Project (1961–1972), which
collected 63,213 voucher specimens from throughout Africa and led to the definitive
"Mammals of Africa: An Identification Guide" (Meester and Setzer 1971), did not
visit Angola at all (Schmidt et al. 2008). Crawford-Cabral and co-authors compiled a
database of just under 10,000 records (hosted by the University of Lisbon, Instituto de
Investigação Científica Tropical in Portugal) mainly from 1930–1980 of 140 species
and subspecies of carnivores, ungulates, and rodents collected from Angola (Crawford-
Cabral 1998; Crawford-Cabral and Simões 1987, 1988; Crawford-Cabral and Verís-
simo 2005).
The Lubango Museum, originally housed by Instituto de Investigação Científica
de Angola (IICA) and currently housed at the the Instituto Superior da Ciências e
Educação (ISCED) comprises about 4,000 mammal specimens of at least 123 spe-
cies from Angola (https://www.gbif.org/publisher/975daf99-f28c-4201-86f2-2bfce0c-
ba085). Another important museum in Angolan history is that established in Dundo.
This was a relatively well-stocked museum and was in an important location (in the far
northeast) for tropical species. There are at least two important papers by A Monard in
1931 and 1935 (cited in Hayman 1963) that detail the bat species in that collection
(as well as other mammals). The small mammals in this collection were reviewed by
Hayman (1963) and he mentioned 602 specimens that he examined (apparently these
were shipped to him in London) belonging to 91 species and subspecies (including
some 14 not previously reported for Angola).
It is little appreciated that Angola was actually relatively well known compared
with East Africa until the turn of the 20th century. Early explorers and scientists such
as Bocage made enormous contributions. Bocage described 25 Angolan taxa based
on new collections between 1878 and 1890, and seven Angolan taxa were named
after him by other scientists (Hill and Carter 1941). Of the taxa described by Boc-
age, although most have been relegated to synonyms or subspecies in current lists, at
least eight currently recognized Angolan mammals were named by him: the Angolan
fruit bats Epomophorus angolensis and Epomops dobsoni, the murid rodents Myomyscus
54 Peter J. Taylor et al. / ZooKeys 779: 51–88 (2018)
Figure 1. Map of Angola showing spatial occurrence of mammal records obtained from various sourc-
es, including the present study which reported on captures of small mammals and acoustic recordings
of the echolocation calls of bats. Although the Cuito-Okavango River trip of 2015 extended beyond
Angola into Namibia and Botswana, there were no species identified from acoustic data in Namibia and
Botswana that were not also detected in Angola.
angolensis and Otomys anchietae, the squirrel Funisciurus bayoni, the gerbil Gerbilliscus
validus, the genet Genetta angolensis and the mongoose Herpestes flavescens.
Notwithstanding changes in taxonomy and the relative lack of survey effort, the
list of species known to occur in Angola has increased, particularly in the case of small
mammals. A relatively recent synthesis of Angolan murid rodents was published by
Crawford-Cabral (1998) after an older synthesis of bats (Crawford-Cabral 1986).
More recently, biogeographical and taxonomic syntheses of African bats (Monadjem
et al. 2010a) and rodents (Monadjem et al. 2015) have listed 60 bat species and 78
rodent species from Angola, representing species richness increases of 13% and 18%,
respectively, in comparison to Hill and Carter (1941).
Tapping into technology and the biodiversity informatics revolution... 55
Materials and methods
Updating of mammal list for Angola
We combined records from the literature (Hill and Carter 1941; Hayman 1963; Crawford-
Cabral 1986, 1998; Crawford-Cabral and Simões 1987, 1988; Crawford-Cabral and Ve-
ríssimo 2005; Monadjem et al. 2010a, 2015) with records obtained from a search of the
GBIF portal (www.gbif.org) conducted on 18 December 2017 (GBIF.org 2017), which
yielded 14,275 records based on 31 databases (Suppl. material 1). The two main institu-
tions contributing data were the Instituto de Investigação Científica Tropical in Portugal
(8,977 records) which incorporates the works of Crawford-Cabral (1998); Crawford-Cabral
and Simões (1987, 1988) and Crawford-Cabral and Veríssimo (2005), and the American
Museum of Natural History (2,240 records), which incorporates the survey of Hill and
Carter (1941). Other important contributors include the Field Museum of Natural History
(1,223 records) and The Natural History Museum in London (895 records). Together, these
four databases comprised 93% of all records. We added records from the 2016 collection
of 68 small mammals (bats, rodents and shrews) from the Okavango catchment of Angola
deposited in the Durban Natural Science Museum (DNSM). The DNSM mammal collec-
tion also yielded an additional 14 records of Angolan rodents collected by S. Eiseb and J.
Jarvis. Finally, we also added records of bat species determined by acoustic bat detector and
capture surveys, shrews and rodents by live trapping methods and medium to large mam-
mals recorded by camera traps supplemented with verifiable opportunistic sightings or signs.
To compile an updated species list based on the above sources, we adopted the tax-
onomy of Wilson and Reeder (2005) or more recent taxonomic treatments for certain
groups, e.g., Monadjem et al. (2010a) and the 2016 African Chiroptera Report for bats
(ACR 2016), Monadjem et al. (2015) and Denys et al. (2017) for rodents, and species
accounts from all volumes of the series on Mammals of Africa (Kingdon et al. 2013a). We
also tested the current taxonomic validity of each name using the Interagency Taxonomic
Information System (www.itis.org) and the Mammal Diversity Database of the American
Society of Mammalogists (Mammal Diversity Database 2018 https://mammaldiversity.
org). Species of dubious occurrence were defined as those having only a single record and/
or collector, no clear basis for identification, occurring well outside their known range,
and not included in authoritative texts for Angola (Hill and Carter 1942; Hayman 1963;
Crawford-Cabral 1986; Crawford-Cabral 1998; Crawford-Cabral and Simões 1987;
1988; Crawford-Cabral and Veríssimo 2005; Monadjem et al. 2010a, 2015). Dubious
species were flagged as such, including the reason for their exclusion. As mentioned above,
bat species records based only on acoustic data were also added to this list.
Sampling of upper Okavango catchment region
Sampling of small mammals from the highlands of Angola using both capture and
acoustic techniques was carried out in 2013 (acoustic only), 2015 (acoustic only),
2016 (capture and acoustic) and 2017 (acoustic only).
56 Peter J. Taylor et al. / ZooKeys 779: 51–88 (2018)
Figure 2. Histogram summarising species number of Angolan terrestrial mammals per order based on
Hill and Carter (1943) and the current study.
Capture survey. Between 16 and 22 March 2016, and 29 October and 4 Novem-
ber 2016, bats were captured using one to three mist nets (Ecotone; 6 m, 9 m and 12
m) set per night, a two-bank harp trap (“Austharp”, Faunatech), and via searches for
roosting bats, e.g., under the loose bark of trees. During the two 2016 field periods, as
well as opportunistically on other occasions, shrews and rodents were captured using
standard Sherman live-traps, usually 25–30 per night, set 5–10 m apart in a line. Some
shrews were captured in the herpetofauna drift fence arrays. Two bats were collected
opportunistically in 2013 and 2016 by W. Conradie.
Acoustic recordings of bats. Using four different bat detectors, we obtained record-
ings for a total of 208 detector-nights between 2015 and 2017. Apart from monitor-
ing of several point localities, regular (mostly nightly) acoustic monitoring was car-
ried out during three canoe river journeys down the length of the Cuanavale, Cuito,
Cubango and Okavango Rivers, totalling a 2,744 km transect. During the 2015 field
season, passive acoustic recordings were obtained with an EM3 bat detector (Wildlife
Acoustics, Concorde, USA) for 75 nights (between 23 May and 18 September 2015)
during a river expedition starting at the Cuito source and continuing to the Okavango
Delta. During the early 2016 field season, passive acoustic recordings of bat echolo-
cation calls were obtained using two Song Meter SM2BAT+ bat detectors (Wildlife
Acoustics) and an ANABAT SD2 bat detector (Titley Electronics). Passive recording
was carried out for six nights in March 2016 with an SM2BAT+ detector and three
nights with ANABAT SD2 (in both cases between 15 and 21 March 2016), from the
Cuito and Cuanavale source areas, Cuchi Gorge and Samboana Village. Additionally,
Tapping into technology and the biodiversity informatics revolution... 57
recordings were obtained for 43 nights in total (between 17 February and 4 April
2016), of which 37 nights yielded calls, during a river trip from the source of Cua-
navale River to its confluence with the Cuito River. Passive recordings were obtained
between 21 October and 4 November 2016 (eight nights) using an SM2BAT+ detec-
tor, from 27 October to 4 November 2016 (10 nights) with an ANABAT SD2 detec-
tor and from 27 October to 2 November 2016 (six nights) with an EM3 detector.
During the late 2016 season, recordings focussed on the Cuanavale and Saliakwembo
source areas. During 2017, recordings were taken for a period of 1–2 hours nightly
for a total of 51 nights with an ANABAT SD1 detector during a river trip down the
Cubango River.
The following approach was used to identify bat calls to species or species-groups.
Call analysis and identification was undertaken independently by three observers (PJT,
MK and DP) although consensus was later obtained on the definition of call param-
eters for each species after extensive consultation and comparison of calls by PJT. Based
on this, a final species list was derived by PJT (Table 1). Using Kaleidoscope Pro soft-
ware (Wildlife Acoustics), the wave files collected with two SMBAT2+ detectors dur-
ing the early 2016 season (February to April 2016), both from the Cuanavale River
transect and from recordings by PJT in the Cuanavale and Cuito source areas, were
firstly converted to zero-crossing (ANABAT) files and then identified manually by
PJT using AnalookW software (version 4.1t, Chris Corbin, www.hoarybat.com), for
comparison with zero-crossing ANABAT calls obtained directly from ANABAT SD1
and SD2 detectors. The latter included recordings from a SD2 bat detector from the
Cuanavale and Cuito source lakes area and Cuchi Gorge in early 2016, as well as those
from an Anabat SD1 detector during the 2017 transect of the Cubango River. Identifi-
cations were based on reference calls obtained both from ANABAT calls from captured
and field-identified individuals that were subsequently released, as well as from stand-
ard references (Monadjem et al. 2010, 2017; Happold and Happold 2013; Taylor et al.
2013) and unpublished call data (Taylor, unpublished, Monadjem, unpublished). Us-
ing the same identification criteria, calls recorded from the Cuanavale and Saliakembo
source lakes in late 2016 using EM3, SM2+ and Anabat SD2 detectors were identified
by MK, while calls recorded with the EM3 detector during the 2015 transect of the
Cuito and Okavango Rivers were identified by DP using a different software (Sono-
Bat). After extensive comparisons of calls and consultation between PJT, MK, and
DP, PJT derived a standard list of putative bat species. This library of identified calls is
available on request from PJT.
Camera trapping. The medium and large mammal surveys were conducted using
two systematic camera-trapping assessments during 2016. The first camera trapping
survey ran between February and March 2016 (936 trap nights) and the second ran
between July and November 2016 (1,349 trap nights).
In the first camera trapping survey, two sites near the southern end of the Bie and
Moxico provinces were sampled using linear transects. Transect 1 (north-west orienta-
tion along the Cuanavale and Cuando Rivers) was approximately 56 km long and was
separated by ca. 20 km from transect 2 (south-east orientation just south of the town
58 Peter J. Taylor et al. / ZooKeys 779: 51–88 (2018)
of Munhango) which was 50 km long. We sampled 19 camera stations along transect
1 and 20 camera stations along transect 2, with each station spaced ca. 3 km (range:
2–4 km) apart. One camera trap was placed at each station and was either a Cudde-
back C2 (n = 11), E3 (n = 8) (Non-Typical, Inc. Green Bay, Wisconsin) or Bushnell
Trophy Cam Aggressor HD (n = 20) (Bushnell Outdoor Products, Cody, Kansas).
Cameras were placed on animal paths about 30cm high on the base of the tree or on
a stake placed in the ground to maximize photographic captures of the full range of
mammalian body sizes (Mann et al. 2015). Cameras were set to take three sequential
photographs per trigger, with an interval of one minute between trigger events. Sen-
sitivity of the sensor was set on medium (normal) and picture quality was set to 5MP.
Cameras were operational for 24 hours a day and were checked only upon collection.
The second camera trapping survey employed a similar approach. However, in this
survey 17 camera stations were sampled along the Cuanavale River south-east from
the village of Tchijanga towards the Quembo River. The transect was approximately
120 km long and camera traps (13 Cuddeback and four Bushnell) were again placed
on well used animal paths, but with no specific distance between each camera station
(range: 1–20 km).
The date and GPS locations of any verifiable sightings and signs of medium and
large mammals were recorded during each expedition. Analyses of photographs from
each camera trap survey were limited to those photographs taken from 12:01am the
day after setting up a camera trap until 12:00pm of day before camera trap stopped
recording. To ensure independence of capture events for each camera trap, images of
individuals of the same species were ignored if captured within one hour of a previ-
ous sighting (O’Brien et al. 2003). For each photograph we recorded the site, date,
time, and species. We excluded sightings of birds, small (< 1 kg) mammals, domestic
animals, people, and any unidentifiable images. The total number of capture events
(n) per species was tallied and their percentage contribution (spp %) to the total
number of photographs was calculated. The capture frequency (CF) for each species
was calculated as the number of capture events (n) per 100 camera-trapping days
(Tobler et al. 2008).
Results
Mammal list for Angola
An updated species checklist of 275 species of Angolan mammals is presented in Suppl.
material 1, comprising 245 species records obtained from GBIF and an additional 30
species added from the literature and recent surveys (additional records marked in bold
in Suppl. material 1). The list excludes commensal and domesticated species. Of this
total, nine bat species were added to the revised GBIF list by Monadjem et al. (2010a),
four rodent species were added by Monadjem et al. (2015), and additional bat, rodent
and shrew species were added by the current survey (see paragraph below).
Tapping into technology and the biodiversity informatics revolution... 59
New small mammal capture data from Okavango Basin
We collected 68 specimens of 24 species of small mammals (three shrew, ten rodent,
and 11 bat species; Table 1). Of these species, one bat (Laephotis angolensis, the An-
golan long-eared bat) and one rodent (Otomys anchietae, the Angolan vlei rat) are An-
golan endemics (Table 1). One bat (Pipistrellus rusticus, rusty pipistrelle), two rodent
species (Mus setzeri Setzer’s mouse and Zelotomys woosnami Woosnam’s broad-faced
mouse) and one shrew (Suncus varilla, lesser dwarf shrew) were recorded for the first
time in Angola, all listed as Least Concern, by the IUCN Red List. Two of the bat spe-
cies were listed as Data Deficient (Plerotes anchietae, Anchieta’s broad-faced fruit bat
and Angolan long-eared bat) and one is classified as Near Threatened (Epomophorus
angolensis, Angolan epauletted fruit bat), while one was not assessed.
There was a very marked difference in bat activity between March 2016 (which
was characterised by heavy rainfall), when only 13 bats were caught, and October/
November 2016 (less frequent rainfall) when 151 bats were collected, in spite of very
similar trap/net effort and six nights sampled for both periods. Captures in late 2016
were dominated by Pipistellus rusticus, Neoromicia capensis, and N. zuluensis.
New acoustic data from the Okavango Basin
From manual identification of zero-crossing calls, we identified a total of 29 putative
species of insectivorous bats (Tables 2, Suppl. material 2).
Diversity and importance of small mammals in Angola and the Okavango source
lakes region
The current capture survey adds one bat species, two rodent species and one shrew
species to the country lists above, bringing to 67 and 87 the total number of Angolan
bat and rodent species. From our current survey, we recorded 13 non-volant small
mammals from the upper Okavango catchment of Angola, and some 33 species of
bats, based on the estimate of insectivorous species from acoustic data (29 species; see
above) combined with one rare species (Mimetillus thomasi, Thomas’s flat headed bat),
for which we have no echolocation data, and three additional species of fruit bats cap-
tured with mist nets/harp-traps (Table 1).
Camera trap data from the Okavango source lakes region
A total of 35 species of medium-large mammals, from 17 families were recorded in 2016
through opportunistic sightings and two formal camera-trapping surveys (Table 3). Ten
species were recorded by both camera surveys and opportunistic sightings (common
60 Peter J. Taylor et al. / ZooKeys 779: 51–88 (2018)
Table 1. List of small mammal species collected in the central region of Angola in 2013 (four speci-
mens) and 2016 (64 specimens) and deposited in the Durban Natural Science Museum. All specimens
were checked by PJT based on cleaned skulls and skins in ethanol.
Species Common name IUCN status Localities recorded
Order Chiroptera
Plerotes anchietae Anchieta’s Broad-Faced Fruit Bat Data Deficient Cuanavale Source
Epomophorus angolensis Angolan Epauletted Fruit Bat Near Threatened Cuchi Gorge
Epomops dobsonii Dobson’s Epauletted Fruit Bat Least Concern Sambojana, Saliakembo
Hypsugo anchietae Anchieta’s pipistrelle Least Concern 13 km north of Chett
Cuito Source, Sambojana,
*Pipistrellus rusticus Rusty Pipistrelle Least Concern
Cuanavale Source, Saliakembo
Cuanavale Source,
Neoromicia zuluensis Zulu Pipistrelle Least Concern
Saliakembo Source
Cuanavale Source,
Neoromicia capensis Cape Serotine Least Concern
Saliakembo Source
Cuanavale Source, Sambojana,
**Laephotis angolensis Angolan Long-Eared Bat Data Deficient
Saliakembo Source
Scotophilus leucogaster White-bellied House Bat Least Concern Saliakembo Source
Cuanavale Source,
Mimetillus thomasi Thomas’s flat-headed bat Not assessed
Saliakembo Source
Chaerephon nigeriae Nigerian Free-Tailed Bat Least Concern Cuanavale Source
Order Soricomorpha
Crocidura fuscomurina Bicolored musk shrew Least Concern Mupapa Falls
Cuanavale Source,
Crocidura hirta Reddish-Grey Musk Shrew Least Concern
Saliakembo Source
* Suncus varilla Lesser Dwarf Shrew Least Concern En route to Sambojana
Order Rodentia
**Otomys anchietae Angolan Vlei Rat Least Concern Cuito Source
Rhabdomys cf. dilectus Striped Mouse Least Concern Cuanavale Source
Mastomys natalensis Multimammate mouse Least Concern Cuanavale Source Lake
Cuanavale Source, Cuito Source
*Mus setzeri Setzer’s Mouse Least Concern
Cunde Falls
Lemniscomus griselda Single-Striped Mouse Least Concern 25 km west of Menongue
*Zelotomys woosnami Woosnam’s Broad-Faced Mouse Least Concern Cuito Source
Gerbilliscus leucogaster Lowveld Gerbil Least Concern Cuanavale Source, Cunde Falls
Graphiurus kelleni Dormouse Least Concern Cuito Source
Cuanavale Source, Cuito Source,
Saccostomus campestris Pouched mouse Least Concern
Sambojana
Cuanavale Source, Cuito Source,
Steatomys krebsii Fat Mouse Least Concern
Mupapa Falls
* New record for Angola ** Angola endemic.
duiker, large-spotted genet, honey badger, side-striped jackal, serval, spotted hyena, por-
cupine, scrub hare, and vervet monkey; see Table 3 for scientific names). Eleven species
were recorded by the camera traps only (greater bushbaby, tree squirrel, springhare,
aardwolf, caracal, African wild cat, lion, aardvark, blue duiker and steenbok). Five spe-
cies were only detected opportunistically during expeditions (African elephant, oribi,
roan, lechwe and sitatunga).